This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Australia. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Australia|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Australia. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Oceania.
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Given that it has been repeatedly confirmed at DRV sources presented during an afd should be ignored and this article should be purely judged on it's current state and should be deleted, unless of course the closing admin chooses to guess what a select few voters just might have possibly been thinking then they can choose to supervote based on their imagination. Don't bother making an effort. Your sources will be ignored. duffbeerforme (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Duffbeerforme, I don't get your position at all. We always consider sources brought up in an AFD discussion, not just the current state of the article. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!06:40, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree that it meets notability standards. It is also of public interest and serves the public. I just found this article after seeking information on this individual. Knox490 (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that Duffbeerforme's assertion (without evidence of any, let alone a pattern) seems at odds with WP:NEXIST (a long-standing part of our notability guideline). To wit, "The current state of the article does not determine notability...Multiple suitable sources that could be cited...Likely notable". But I cannot access most of GMH's links to decide how in-depth and independent of each other they are for this person himself. DMacks (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete: I'm not entirely sure whether this article, such as it is, is about an American company or about Australian radio stations… and I'm not sure the article knows either. This has been tagged as a potential WP:CORP failure since July 2021 (only a month after creation); if there is any solution to this that doesn't involve deletion, I'm not seeing it. WCQuidditch☎✎18:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed spacing in the headers that broke some of the links (it took me a while to catch that, despite my earlier comment here). WCQuidditch☎✎23:16, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without even going into suspect bona fides of the page’s author, and putting best spin on page’s intent, which is to serve as a list of Mackay Radio stations, then still fails WP:STANDALONE. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment: (Keep) She is one of the most popular active female Australian wrestlers and a pioneer of Pro-Wrestling: EVE. Has worked for companies from three different continents and is accomplished. As for the sourcing, the article includes links to trustworthy sites such as fightful.com, voicesofwrestling.com, Squared Circle Sirens, Diva Dirt or Last Word on Pro Wrestling. They might not point her name out, but they clearly demonstrate her work. There also exist several interviews with her from YahooSports and WrestleSports. Unfortunately I didn't include them since they are only audio work. I think the article meets the notability criterias and also has a WikiData correspondent (item Q126186302), therefore I strongly believe that it should remain on the mainspace. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeyReydar97 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are results only and the others are trivia mentions only. One source is unreliable and I'll be removing it. Clearly not notable and not a major figure in UK wrestling by default for said lack of notability. Addicted4517 (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fight promotions and results, interviews, and wrestling databases do not constitute significant independent coverage. Being "popular" is also not a WP notability criteria. According to WP:NSPORT, pro wrestling is not classified as a sport here, but rather as entertainment, so wrestling records and titles are immaterial. WP:ENTERTAINER says notability is achieved if "The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." There is no evidence that she meets this criteria. Papaursa (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Contested G11. This appears to have been written by a UPE and reads like an advertisement. All of the coverage I can find is run of the mill. Even if notable, G11 is appropriate. voorts (talk/contributions) 11:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Various blogs or reports of a store opening are all I can see for coverage. The Forbes source used is a contributor, so non-reliable. I don't find any coverage we can use for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure the brand will meet N eventually, but certainly not with convoluted ad copy like '(the) brand is recognized as the sixth favorite shopping website for upper-income teens in the United States, according to the Piper Sandler Taking Stock With Teens 2023 survey'...that's some stretching that'll break an ankle. Nate•(chatter)20:30, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I reviewed and accepted this draft in AfC as I felt that the company itself met WP:NCORP and was able to find suitable coverage online. Not going to vote formally as I already had a chance to review the article but several voters are claiming there's not enough sources that can be used to establish notability when I found multiple: Business InsiderSydney Morning HeraldAustralian Financial Review ~Liancetalk23:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of those, I think only the BI story provides significant coverage. The SMH story is a run-of-the-mill announcement about the parent company's IPO, with a brief mention about this brand, and the AFR story is a one sentence announcement. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of notable references to this company that could be included in this page as it meets the WP:NCORP. Including the sources noted by Liance, Ragtrader which speaks to both positive and negative market fluctuations of the parent company, IT News discussing a data breach, and BBC article with Lori Loughlin scandal. Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience. Wikiguru777 (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ragtrader has no clear editorial policy, the article you've cited is run-of-the-mill reporting about stores opening, and trade journals generally don't satisfy NCORP. IT News is likewise a run-of-the-mill data breach story in a trade publication, and does not establish that the company is notable. The BBC article contains only this brief mention of the brand: "The social media influencer has launched a clothing collection with women's online fashion boutique Princess Polly and a make-up palette with cosmetics chain Sephora." voorts (talk/contributions) 21:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
plenty of notable references to this company: for a company to be notable under NCORP, there needs to be more than "references"; there needs to be several sources, each of which must be secondary, independent, and reliable, and contain significant coverage of the company.Regarding: Amongst all these references is a wealth of information poised to add valuable information to the wikipedia audience. Wikipedia's readers are not an audience for advertising to. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to "trade journals generally don't satisfy NCORP" I can see that featured trade stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear. Reporting on net revenue decrease and factual store openings is unbiased, independent information. Sydney Morning Herald is a notable article and speaks to the brand multiple times throughout the article.
In addition, I've also found the BBB review / complaints for the company (where reviews must be independent secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject).
Greenmatters appears to be reliable and its critique of the company's claims of being ethical while sourcing from "countries with extreme risk of label abuse" indicates this definitely isn't a sponsored post.
Sydney Morning Herald is a notable article and speaks to the brand multiple times throughout the article. References or mentions are not enough to establish notability. The article also isn't about this company; it's about the parent company's IPO.
I believe IT news should also be considered a source as it is “featured trade stories from leading trade magazines may be used where independence is clear.”
I’ve also found Goon On You which questions Princess Polly’s ethical standards. This source is reliable & independent
The above is enough to satisfy NCORP as “significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.”
This is my first publishing so I'm learning more about the rules here and I appreciate your previous feedback to help discern what is appropriate. I believe the above should be suitable to comply with NCORP. Wikiguru777 (talk) 23:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IT News is not a "leading trade magazine" in fashion. It's a run-of-the-mill news story that focuses on the data breach, not significant coverage about the company itself. Greenmatters is basically secondary source coverage of Good on You, which is a primary source since it's a report made by an advocacy group. So, we still only have two sources that meet WP:SIRS, Green Matters and BI, which isn't enough under NCORP. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree BI is ok though I'm not so sure Green Matters is sufficient for ORGDEPTH. IT news would also fail ORGIND given its like, 90% quotes from the company, and does not appear to have any secondary analysis, very far from being a featured story, so I'd agree there also. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:V - Verifiability: This article contains almost no sourcing. Information present is unreliable and a lot of it seems to have been added in contravention of WP:NOR. Has been this way for 14 odd years judging by the article.
WP:ORG - Notability: The article does not meet the Notability guidelines for criminal organisations due to insufficient coverage in independent, secondary sources.
Overall almost none of the information in this article is verifiable, and that is which is verifiable is not notable enough to warrant an article. I considered removing the unverified content, but that which would remain does not seem substantive enough. Rakki9999111 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. There seem to be plenty of sources on this group. That they aren't in the page is unrelated to notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete - Non-notable bio which only has two sentences about his ministry. The rest is about his education and family background. — Maile (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable as an important faith figure in New South Wales’ third biggest Christian denomination. All Moderators of the Uniting Church should be profiled rather than deleting them so we have record of church leadership. hSproulesLane (talk) 10:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a well known deletionist LibStar has made his point so I hope he will allow other editors to have their say without harassing them to accept his view of a minimalist version of an online encyclopaedia … please let others contribute without your bullying. SproulesLane (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve added references from The Sydney Morning Herald, The Guardian, The Northern Daily Leader and the NSW Government indicating his activities in resent years. SproulesLane (talk) 10:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding sources. The SMH one is a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. The NSW government one is him merely making a statement on behalf of the church and also not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 16:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Unfortunately I don't see how this meets WP:BASIC. The only independent article that offers WP:SIGCOV is this one by The Sydney Morning Herald. The two ([6][7]) magazine articles by the Uniting Church are not independent and don't count towards notability. CFA💬01:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion that together with the references in the article shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Article on a planned film, apparently created by its director, hasn't actually begun filming yet, zero coverage so far outside of two posts on director's YouTube channel. Moved to draft three times, where it was correctly declined once as failing WP:NFILM. My speedy A7 was declined in favour of a third move back to draft, but article creator moved it back to main space minutes later, so here we are. Wikishovel (talk) 07:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also keeps removing COI templates despite doing nothing to actually resolve it, although seems like they've stopped for now. Sadustu Tau (talk) 10:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:CORP. One of plenty of tech accessory companies around the world; what makes this stand out as a more notable one than the rest? B3251 (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course things have changed since then. ORGCRIT has been tightend a lot since 2011 (I understand most people place the change around 2018) and while "puff piece" probably shouldn't (and wouldn't) have been a ringing endorsement even back then, the article in The Australian fails current standards for ORGIND by such a distance I struggle to imagine anyone who has actually read the article would think it complies with the current guidelines. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it fails ORGIND. Sure, it's a business column, but what else? Are you claiming that the writer invests in Gecko Gear?We already have three sources that pass NCORP. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it fails ORGIND... do you mean besides the fact it's almost entirely composed of quotes and paraphrases taken directly from what the company has to say? ORGIND has two parts. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Probably spent way too much time on this, but whatever. Not sure what the third source that passed NCORP was. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}} This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
The Age (PQ 870699777 TWL link, can't find a FUTON copy)
–
Look, it literally has 5 sentence-sized paragraphs related to the subject, none of which are not a quote, none of which are actually about the subject, plus one about a bag they make.
Besides being a WP:CORPROUTINE announcement, what can we verify besides 1) they have one distribution deal, and 2) they are discussing other distribution deals? That they're celebrating?
–
Barker, Gary (28 Apr 2011) "Shape of Apples to come: mac man" The Age PQ 865591170 TWL
–
–
There's just nothing about the company here except a few quotes from Raymond (the director of the company)
–
I think that's about it, unless someone wants to start digging through the dead tree copies of the Australian MacWorld and stuff. I don't see the point frankly, I find it extremely unlikely there exists anything meeting ORGCRIT. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:42, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Editors wanting to Keep this article should try to rebut the source analysis presented here. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!21:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to change my !vote to neutral. I'm not entirely convinced that Barker and Foo don't demonstrate original opinion, but it is indeed too little. Both only count partially, so that isn't a good case for notability. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me put two additional arguments to you. First, the topic of this article is the *company* but the Barker article is about the Ipad2 cover and based entirely on an interview with the founder. Second, references don't count "partially" - we don't aggregate 10 (or whatever number you choose) sources that fail NCORP and determine that there's "enough" therefore to meet the criteria for establishing notability - see WP:SIRS which governs how to evaluate each source and says each individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking was that the SIGCOV part is extremely shaky, so it counts partially. If it fails IND, then it's just a fail. Barker has a paragraph of individual analysis, but that is indeed just a single, tiny paragraph that happens to not be a trivial mention. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but just FYI, that's not how to apply the criteria. It is a binary yes/no pass/fail decision. There's no such thing as counting "partially". A "single tiny paragraph" from one reference fails and does not count towards establishing notability. HighKing++ 14:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. If technically meets SIGCOV but is nowhere near supporting notability. That's what I mean by barely partially. If we had a source that had two, longer paragraphs about the company itself that can't count as one as its own, I think we can combine it with a similar (but different, ofc) source to count as 1 source unit for notability, while my minimum is 2 source units. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to the criteria for establishing notability than SIGCOV but to answer your thought on whether you can combine sources to count a 1 source unit, at least for companies/organizations, no we cannot. I've pointed you to WP:SIRS above which clarifies that each individual source must meet all the criteria. Hope that helps, sorry if I'm only confusing matters further for you. HighKing++ 11:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the chart shows, none of the sources are useful for notability in 2024... Beyond mentions of hte company, I still don't see extensive sourcing we can use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing++ 19:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Discarding canvassed votes and views not based on P&G, there is rough consensus to delete. Owen×☎13:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are trivial (included in a list of other youtubers) and non-independent. One significant coverage is about his investigation by the police. No other significant independent secondary source covering his popularity as a content creator. - AlbeitPK (talk) 01:51, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion. Have any sources mentioned in previous discussions been examined? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!00:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article that doesn't meet WP:ENT for inclusion on Wikipedia. While I couldn't find any clue in the former AFDs that I still hold deep breath of how it had survived two–three discussions. I am not going to base in any past whatsoever but here is the source analysis and final conclusion. source 1 is a primary source but it verifies the content as used in most of the articles like that per WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. Source 2 is good for sourcing but doesn't support the 'wife marriage'. source 3 is an obvious advert and interview making me suspect the credibility/reliability of source 2. Source 4 is unreliable, and source 5 looks like an advertorial unverifiable publication. Source 6, source 7, and source 8 contributes to a non notable controversy and I call it WP:BLP1E because the said event is not notable for a standalone article. [8] and [9] supports a non notable film and book, hence doesn't meet WP:NACTOR or WP:NAUTHOR. Safari ScribeEdits!Talk!21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been improved and more reliable sources are added, such as The Daily Star or Prothom Alo. Popular national reliable newspapers claim that Salman Muqtadir is a popular YouTuber and actor and there are a bunch of sources about him from reliable sites. Although some news are about his marriage or other things but they are published independently about him and declared him as YouTuber, influencer or actor. Therefore GNG has been able to establish. Ontor22 (talk) 12:03, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News from The Daily Star are not paid or sponsored articles at all. Other news channels including Daily Star use disclaimers on sponsored articles but these are not. His marriage news appeared in multiple news channels.
Salman Muktadir is not only YouTuber but also worked in various entertainment fields including television, stage performance which established his notability based on WP:ENT. Ontor22 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedural relist to rescue lost AfD. There's close to a consensus to delete here, but not something I'm comfortable closing as myself given the promises I made to stay out of using my admin tools for tricky content issues. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery *it has begun...20:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP After four consecutive AFDs, the article mostly survives on Wikipedia. Still, there is a stir among editors. Mainly his being a YouTuber, but he has also worked in drama and music which makes him notable under WP:ENT. Mafmes (talk) 03:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep The article was very stub-y so I did some work filling it out using the references that were there. Someone with better access to Australian sources can probably improve this even more. Lamona (talk) 03:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
(PROD declined with no explanation) Fails WP:MUSICBIO. What little coverage I can find featuring this person's name is about his bands, not Burke himself Mach6114:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This page we should keep given that the musician written about has a long-term and ongoing authentic discography as cited on reliable archival / data sites such as Discogs with news features on various media outlets. If for some reason it is a problem for the information to be listed under “Rick Burke (musician)”, I would strongly recommend that rather than deleting the article on superfluous grounds, the content should be split into 2 pages: one for “Comacozer” and one for “Tropical Sludge” with a redirect from the original “Rick Burke (musician)” page. In saying that, it does not make sense to split the information into several pages therefore it should be retained as one to keep the information tidy on Wikipedia. NEXUS6N6MAA10816 (talk) 06:04, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NEXUS6N6MAA10816 Having a long-term and ongoing authentic discography does not count towards inclusion in Wikipedia. With regard to your suggestion the article be split, there is not enough content about those bands for one to be viable. Mach6116:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mach61, thanks for your kind suggestions. The article is important as it streamlines information on Rick Burke which people actively search for on the internet within the context of "Underground Music" (see Wiki entry for this) and fits into the scope of "WikiProject Music". Associated acts such as Kikagaku Moyo, Electric Wizard, It's Psychedelic Baby and so on have existing entries on Wikipedia and this article will complete a missing part of that academic puzzle as it increasingly gets fleshed out as a public document. Best wishes. NEXUS6N6MAA10816 (talk) 05:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep All "next election" articles are implicitly notable, the article should be moved to its redirect (Next Tasmanian state election), but not deleted. AveryTheComrade (talk) 09:27, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's implicitly notable where are the reliable secondary sources? None of the sources in this article go towards the notability of the article. TarnishedPathtalk08:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is your argument that a Tasmanian election would not be notable? Because a state election in Tasmanian is implicitly notable. And as background is apart of election articles, this type of coverage has already started eg with the speaker being chosen /agreements being signed for the minority government as sourced in the article. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An agreement for minority government for this term of government is your evidence for the 2028 state election? I'm sorry can you point out in that ABC source where it talks about the 2028 election and not merely the outcome of the 2024 election?
Although WP:OTHERTHINGS may not be a full or 'good' argument it can still be an argument and when in the context of elections is a relevant one. Particularly for main election articles of National and State elections. All of the other 5 states and main 2 territories of Australia have next election articles. MyacEight (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If those articles are about events that are almost 4 years away and the sourcing is as lacking as this articles then you only make an argument for nominating those articles for deletion. TarnishedPathtalk05:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Enos733. Next elections are almost always notable and this doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL: only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. SportingFlyerT·C00:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm still failing to see a single reliable secondary source in the article which talks about the 2028 election. How can anyone possibly argue that this passes WP:GNG without appropriate sourcing? TarnishedPathtalk12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem really dead-set on insisting that an article about the 2028 election isn't notable, while failing to address that everyone arguing for keeping the article is in support of renaming it to be more generally the next state election. AveryTheComrade (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely zero coverage in secondary sources. How much more WP:TOOSOON can you get than that? Even if it were to be renamed to Next Tasmanian state election the same statement holds. At best this should be draftify but I don't really see that as much of an alternative to deletion given how far out the election is. TarnishedPathtalk11:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As of sources per WP:RS: three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list. Checked WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing. I would have no objections to a keep if the article was in the same quality of List of Wimbledon broadcasters.
Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article.? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not feel strongly about this page, but I do find the reasons for deletion to be garbage. This is not a TV guide, neither was the French Open page or any other of the tennis tournament broadcasters pages. This statement about the page "to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?" I find to be the most nonsense. This page is not bloated at all. Since when is something listed in an encyclopedia only because it is popular? The whole point about an encyclopedia (particularly an online one that is not limited in size by printing costs) is that it should contain obscure information (I am not sure a listing of which networks broadcast a major tennis event is that obscure anyway). I would never request any page on wikipedia be deleted, as this goes against what I believe wikipedia should be about. If editors feel pages are not sourced well that is a different issue. If I feel that is the case when I look at a page, I look to find sources (in this page's case many sources may be broadcasts of finals which list the commentators). The only problematic issue with this page (and other Grand Slam TV broadcasters history pages) is that TV broadcast contracts are merging into online streaming contracts (with various limitations to customers based on location) and keeping up with all the different streaming contracts may be problematic going forward. But the pages still have a value when looking back on the era when events were broadcast on TV (for the time being Wimbledon is still broadcast on conventional TV by the BBC, though maybe not for much longer). This change to streaming could easily be overcome by a simple statement "in recent years the event has been available on a variety of streaming services". The No TV guide wikipedia policy that the deletion proposer posted a link to says the following: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." That clearly shows a primary reason for deletion of this article and others like it is bogus.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SoftWeak Delete After some due research within the scope of the Australian Open, I have come to the conclusion that as a list, the topic fails WP:LISTN, but as a prose, it has more potential as its own article. If the closer determines that, then I would suggest that we consider moving this article to just be History of Australian Open broadcasts, remove the WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:OR, and keep the sources that actually commit notability to this topic. Conyo14 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very little original research in this article. Finals commentators can be known by watching the matches. YouTube videos could be used as sources for this (including from official channels). It is of interest to some to know the finals commentators.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 13:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Linking to online videos can be acceptable if it is demonstrated that the content was posted by the copyright holder or with their permission." More and more videos from long ago are being published on YouTube from official tennis sources, particularly the Australian Open (they are currently undertaking a project uploading a lot of their archive from 1975 onwards). A very good source of who is commentating on a match is the match itself provided by the tournament itself (just about as reliable as it can possibly be). And wikipedia policy seems to agree with that. The No original research policy states "Faithfully translating sourced material into English, or transcribing spoken words from audio or video sources, is not considered original research."Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that information, and some due thought, the videos that the Open produce via YouTube or distributable under the rights of the Open to their respective broadcasting partners, are therefore WP:PRIMARY. So, basically, a source that demonstrates some significant coverage of who calls the game, commentates, reports, etc. would have to be done by a secondary source, like if a local tv station called out who was doing it. I am not saying it's a bad source, just that it wouldn't qualify for the main thing I am arguing for: WP:LISTN. Conyo14 (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a stand-alone list. Regarding primary sources, "a primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Obviously the wikipedia policy has to be careful to ensure that, for example, an article written about a political party does not solely use as its source the political party's official website. Not relevant to a broadcast of the Australian Open, where the commentators are mentioned (incidentally there are many other videos of the same matches not posted by the official YouTube channel of the tournament which have the same commentary). What this whole thing about is one editor copying and pasting deletion requests and posting them on many pages based on bogus reasons, referencing wikipedia policy articles that he clearly hasn't read. This editor does not seem to be contributing much to wikipedia (certainly not anything to this article), and is only intent on destroying and removing perfectly valid material. And you Conyo14, seem to be acting as a tag team with this editor. In common with the original poster, you seem to show no interest in the subject matter (even admitting so in your comments here) yet despite this seem intent on giving your views on whether this article should be removed, quoting wikipedia policy articles you clearly have not read, then when your ignorance is shown up, quoting other articles. There has already been one ANI trying to ban the user posting this deletion request and there may be more if this user continues to behave in this way. Why don't both users consider spending their time more productively, creating rather than destroying. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I don't appreciate your tone here, perhaps you need to stop replying here as your accusations of a tag team are mislead as well as my interpretations of a policy that are not unfounded. You're welcome to continue your usage of your interpretation of the policy as well as mine, because as far as that goes, it won't matter until the relister does their judgment. Conyo14 (talk) 13:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't me that first used the term "tag team", it was another editor that I do not know on the ANI, but it seems a pretty accurate description to me. I read the following text that you posted on the deletion proposer's user page, regarding the mass posting of deletion requests. "It's getting exhausting pressing copy and paste on these haha. Good work though on these. I definitely recommend slowing down a bit though. I'm not sure by how much, but one prior editor had a run going and then was formally warned to slow down in WP:ANI. You may create a user space here for the lists you wish to delete, that way you don't lose track of them". Those comments speak for themselves. I have quoted wikipedia policy documents that you and the deletion proposer have quoted throughout, showing how ridiculous your interpretations of them are (not surprising really, considering a lot of the text in the posts proposing deletion had very similar text on deletion requests for many pages which vary immensely). I have nothing personal against you, Conyo14, but your interventions here and on other removal pages do you no credit. I have not commented on the vast majority of the hundreds of pages which the user has requested for deletion, because they are on sports that I have no interest in, and I have a rule that I never edit or comment on subjects that do not interest me. But I agree there is little to be gained by a protracted argument. The wikipedia policies speak for themselves, as does the edit history of the editor proposing the deletion.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conyo14, this discussion can't be closed as a "Soft Delete" as there are editors arguing for "Keeping" this article. Therefore, deletion is not uncontroversial and Soft Deletion is not appropriate. Soft Deletions are similar to Proposed Deletions and so if Deletion is contested, then SD can't be a closure result. LizRead!Talk!00:38, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Let'srun, I am struggling to see where the notability here comes from to meet the LISTN threshold. While a secondary consideration as AfD is not cleanup, there's far too much original research here for my liking too — representative in my opinion of the lack of secondary sources covering this topic, hence the LISTN concerns. Daniel (talk) 23:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a good knowledge of the level of accuracy of this article (the accuracy level is high). I would not defend an article that was not accurate. There are numerous sources already, primary and secondary, but I have added more. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 08:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your personal knowledge of the content included in this article is of minimal relevance, per WP:OR. But that is not the primary reason I believe this should be deleted. It is the failure of meeting the LISTN threshold through independent, reliable secondary sources that mean this should be deleted. Daniel (talk) 11:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Tennihistory1877. The article has potential and room to be improved, and I do not see deletion as justified, considering that the article contains verifiable and sourced information. Clone commando sev (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
So at first glance, this BLP looks legit but upon but digging deeper, I couldn't find any major roles in TV shows or movies as required per WP:ACTOR. Also, when I tried to find more about the subject per WP:BEFORE, I didn't come across enough coverage to meet WP:GNG either. Plus, it's worth noting that this BLP was created back in 2021 by a SPA Sahgalji (talk·contribs) and has been mostly edited by UPEs so there's COI issues as well. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Chupke Chupke, Pyari Mona, Hum Tum.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank)13:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC) (Again, sorry but so many Afds related to Pakistan/TV series, I might not reply here any further, should you, as I expect, not find the sources to your liking for one reason or another or if clarifications are needed; it was already challenging for me to find time to check some of them and !vote).[reply]
It's not a matter of whether I like a source or not. It's obvious that the sources are clearly not reliable, no even for WP:V purpose. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In looking at the original article and the SPA creation & editing of this article, as well as other articles that mention the subject, it is likely this is an autobiography. 128.252.210.1 (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist. I am 100% certain that this is not an autobiography. Even if it were, that is not necessarily a valid deletion rationale. UPE might be an issue though. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!23:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate sourcing fails to directly details the BLP subject. The subject is verified but in my opinion (based on applied, presented and found reliable sources), doesn't meet GNG, ANYBIO or NACTOR. BusterD (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails GNG and NORG/CORP. Source in article and BEFORE are database records, game recaps, routine local mill news, and name mentions, nothing that meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Ping me if indepth sources addressing the subject directly meeting WP:SIRS are found. // Timothy :: talk17:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting a link to that great article about the Trentham FNC to help try and maintain some of the club's valuable football and netball history. Justin J. Kelly (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Final relist to see if some consensus on an outcome can be found. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LizRead!Talk!22:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would classify it as "small beer." It's difficult for me to take seriously an interview with a "legendary" somebody who recalls successfully playing minor league football in a small Victoria town sixty years ago (a "legendary" but non-notable figure in a village of almost 1,200 dwellers!), I see nothing which demonstrates this team any more notable than any of the other entries on the league article which don't have pages about them. I see nothing significant and independent which actually shows the club exists as of this datestamp. If I stipulate the team exists, I'm forced to add there's not enough direct detailing to make this team meet WP:NTEAM (these days GNG) to rate an article on English Wikipedia. Not all local amateur sports teams are notable. The BURDEN is on those asserting keep. I assert page supporters haven't met their burden. I am arguing for a redirect outcome so that when sufficient sources ARE found, page supporters can just improve the page without hassle. BusterD (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Australia-related Proposed Deletion nominations
The following Australian-related articles are currently Proposed for Deletion:
Australia-related Miscellany for deletion
The following Australian-related MfD's are currently open for discussion:
None at present
Australia-related Templates for Deletion
The following Australian-related TfD's are currently open for discussion:
None at present
Australia-related Categories for Discussion
The following Australian-related CfD's are currently open for discussion:
Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
